moving meta-{openpower, x86, arm} content to meta-phosphor

Ed Tanous ed at
Sat Aug 22 02:53:21 AEST 2020

On Thu, Aug 20, 2020 at 9:32 AM Patrick Williams <patrick at> wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 20, 2020 at 09:15:52AM -0400, Brad Bishop wrote:
> > I propose we allow the creation of additional folders using this
> > convention e.g.
> >
> > - recipes-power
> I'd like to propose a change to the name of your processor
> architecture to avoid confusion between recipes involving the power
> subsystem, but I'm sure your marketing organization would have a thing
> or two to say about it.  In seriousness, it might be good to continue to
> use openpower in this project considering that the OpenPower Foundation
> holds the ISA specs and it avoids confusion with the power subsystem.
> > - recipes-x86-amd (we might want to look at renaming recipes-x86 to
> > recipes-x86-intel)
> I think it would be good to come up with a schema on how we represent
> the machine overrides and recipe subdirectories so there isn't
> inconsistency there.   Something like <arch>-<company>-<model>[1]?

I think in this, recipes-power would go to recipes-power-IBM.  I think
that solves it, no?

> I do have slight concern about there becoming an enormous number of
> variable overrides, patch files, etc. as we support an increasing number
> of processors, but I suppose that points to an underlying problem in our
> implementation which needs refactoring.
> 1. What do we do about risc-v which has a dash in the architecture name?

Technically isn't RISC-V the same thing as power9, and we just drop
the version from it?  Or is the "5" an important part of the name?
RISC-V is definitely a case where having the company in the naming
convention is going to be important, given that (to my understanding)
the design can be picked up by anyone and modded as they see fit.

More information about the openbmc mailing list